logo
What to know about Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Rebecca Bradley ahead of the 2026 election

What to know about Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Rebecca Bradley ahead of the 2026 election

Yahoo2 days ago

MADISON - The field is set for next year's Wisconsin Supreme Court election with incumbent conservative Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Rebecca Bradley facing off against challenger liberal state Appeals Court Judge Chris Taylor in the spring 2026 election.
Bradley announced her reelection bid just days after liberals secured control of the court until at least 2028 with the election of Susan Crawford, a Dane County Circuit Court judge. The court is expected to take up key issues including abortion, collective bargaining and potentially the state's congressional maps.
While Wisconsin Supreme Court races are officially nonpartisan, justices on the court typically lean liberal or conservative. In recent years, the race has become increasingly polarized, with partisan groups continuing to back their party's preferred candidate.
Liberal candidates have won four of the last five Supreme Court elections. In 2023, the court flipped to a liberal majority for the first time in 15 years with the election of Justice Janet Protasiewicz.
Here's what to know about Bradley, including her legal system experience, positions on key issues, education and more.
Bradley was elected to the Wisconsin Supreme Court for a full 10-year term in 2016 after being appointed by former Republican Gov. Scott Walker in 2015. Bradley chairs the Supreme Court Legislative Committee as the chief justice's designee.
Before joining the state's high court, Bradley was appointed to and served as a District I Court of Appeals judge in 2015, headquartered in Milwaukee, and was a Milwaukee County Circuit Court judge from 2012 to 2015. She is the first Wisconsin Supreme Court justice to have served as an intermediate appellate court judge and a circuit court judge.
Bradley also worked as a private practice attorney at several Milwaukee law firms from 1996 to 2012, specializing in commercial litigation and intellectual property law. She also served as a vice president of legal operations for global software company RedPrairie Corp.
Bradley is considered a conservative judge and has served as president of the Milwaukee Federalist Society chapter and participated in the Thomas More Society and the Republican National Lawyers Association.
Bradley is 53.
Bradley is a Milwaukee native.
Bradley received her bachelor's degree in business administration and business economics from Marquette University in 1993. She then attended the University of Wisconsin Law School, graduating in 1996.
Bradley has yet to receive endorsements from fellow conservative judges on the Supreme Court, however, it is still very early in the race.
When Bradley ran in 2016, she was endorsed by Milwaukee-area law enforcement and former state Supreme Court Justices Jon P. Wilcox and Michael Gableman.
Bradley has strongly opposed abortion rights in the past but has not yet weighed in on a case involving abortion as a Supreme Court justice.
In college, Bradley compared abortion to the Holocaust and slavery, equating abortion to "a time in history when Jews were treated as non-humans and tortured and murdered" and "a time in history when Blacks were treated as something less than human" while writing for the Marquette Tribune in 1992.
During Bradley's 2016 race, both Bradley and her opponent, Court of Appeals Judge JoAnne Kloppenburg, shied away from sharing their views on the issue while campaigning, as abortion rights was likely to appear before the Supreme Court.
In recent Wisconsin Supreme Court elections, abortion rights have remained a crucial flash point with both Protasiewicz and Crawford's campaigns using it as a rallying issue.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling soon on whether the state's 1849 law specifically bans abortions or whether more recent laws or court rulings override it. The court had a liberal majority at the time of oral arguments and typically issues its opinions by the end of June.
While the court has agreed to hear another case brought by Planned Parenthood seeking to make abortion a constitutional right, the court has yet to schedule a date for oral arguments. The case will most likely be heard before the winner of the spring 2026 election takes their seat.
Shortly after Democrats swept statewide races in 2018, the Republican-controlled Legislature passed "lame-duck" laws to scale back the powers of the incoming Democratic governor and attorney general.
The "lame-duck" laws have been litigated for years. In 2019 and again in 2020, the Supreme Court's conservative majority sided with Republicans.
In 2019, the court ruled lawmakers were allowed to bring themselves into session in December to trim Evers' and Attorney General Josh Kaul's power before they look office.
"The Wisconsin Constitution mandates that the Legislature meet 'at such time as shall be provided by law.' The Legislature did so," Bradley wrote for the majority in 2019.
In 2020, the court found that "in at least some cases" the state Legislature can give itself the power to approve or reject Department of Justice civil cases and settlements, upholding most of the "lame duck" laws but leaving the door open to future challenges.
Now that the Supreme Court has a 4-3 liberal majority, Kaul has asked the justices to decide whether the Joint Finance Committee has the power to approve or reject DOJ civil cases and settlements.
The Republican-controlled state Legislature passed a law in 2011 that requires voters to show their ID at the polls, a measure that was stalled for years by court rulings.
In 2014, the Supreme Court's conservative majority issued a pair of decisions that upheld the law and tweaked it to ensure there are no fees to get a state-issued ID card.
While running for her first term on the court, Bradley declined to say whether she agreed with those rulings.
Bradley emphasized the importance of maintaining election integrity and has raised concerns about the election system.
Bradley wrote for the majority that state law does not permit drop boxes anywhere other than election clerk offices in its 2022 ruling on ballot drop boxes.
"WEC's staff may have been trying to make voting as easy as possible during the pandemic, but whatever their motivations, WEC must follow Wisconsin statutes. Good intentions never override the law," Bradley wrote.
When that decision was ultimately overturned by the newly liberal-controlled court in 2024, Bradley authored the dissenting opinion, writing the liberal majority "again forsakes the rule of law in an attempt to advance its political agenda," citing the court's previous ruling tossing the state's electoral maps.
Bradley has consistently sided with the Supreme Court's conservative bloc on key issues, including upholding Act 10, a 13-year-old law signed by Walker that banned most collective bargaining rights for public employees.
In December, a Dane County judge struck down most of the law and in February, the Wisconsin Supreme Court denied a petition to bypass the court of appeals and take up the case directly.
The case now sits in the appeals court and if the ruling is appealed again, it would then go to the state Supreme Court.
Currently, the judge placed his ruling on hold, meaning the law is in effect as it moves through the courts.
Bradley will face off against Taylor on April 7, 2026. The winner's 10-year term would begin in August 2026. If Bradley retains her seat, the court's liberal majority will remain 4-3.
Bradley's current term expires July 31, 2026.
This article originally appeared on Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: What to know about Rebecca Bradley before Wisconsin Supreme Court race

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Who would want to have babies under a Trump administration? Not me.
Who would want to have babies under a Trump administration? Not me.

Yahoo

time16 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Who would want to have babies under a Trump administration? Not me.

Despite declarations that something needs to be done about the declining birth rate in the United States, neither President Donald Trump nor the Republican Party has the desire to protect pregnant people. If they did, the Trump administration wouldn't have made its latest move to restrict abortion nationwide. On Tuesday, June 3, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services rescinded a Biden-era policy that directed hospitals to provide emergency abortions if it was needed to stabilize a pregnant patient. The guidance and communications on it apparently 'do not reflect the policy of this Administration.' I, like many people who support abortion rights, know what this will lead to. It means more pregnant people will die. Does that reflect the policy of the administration? The Biden policy was implemented in 2022, following the fall of Roe v. Wade, and argued that hospitals receiving Medicare funding had to comply with the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA). The former administration argued that this included providing emergency abortions when they were needed to stabilize a patient, even in states that had severe abortion restrictions. Opinion: A brain dead pregnant Georgia woman is a horror story. It's Republicans' fault. This wasn't entirely a surprise. In 2024, the Supreme Court ruled that Texas could ban virtually all abortions in the state, including abortions that would have occurred under the old EMTALA guidelines. Still, it's terrifying to see this crucial policy eliminated. It's already dangerous to be pregnant in the United States. Our maternal mortality rate is much higher than in other wealthy countries. Same with our infant mortality rate. This will only exacerbate these tragedies. In states with abortion bans, the risks are even greater. A study from the Gender Equity Policy Institute found that people living in states with abortion bans were twice as likely to die during or shortly after childbirth. This is also backed by anecdotal evidence, including the 2022 deaths of two women in Georgia after the state passed a six-week ban. A different study found that infant mortality rates increased in states with severe restrictions on abortion, including an increase in deaths due to congenital anomalies. The Trump administration does not care about what is medically necessary to save someone's life. They don't care about whether the children supposedly saved by rescinding this policy will grow up without their mother. They care about their perceived moral superiority. They care about controlling women. Why would anybody want to have a child under that Republican way of thinking? Opinion: We're worrying about the wrong thing. Low birth rate isn't the crisis: Child care is. I want to say I'm surprised that the Trump administration would allow women in need of emergency care to die. Yet this is clearly aligned with the Republican stance on abortion, just like it's aligned with the actions that the party has taken to make it harder for women to access necessary care. Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store. Whether you like it or not, abortion is a necessary part of health care. It saves lives. Alexis McGill Johnson, the president and CEO of Planned Parenthood, laid it out plainly. 'Women have died because they couldn't get the lifesaving abortion care they needed,' she said in a statement. 'The Trump administration is willing to let pregnant people die, and that is exactly what we can expect." Again, this is the administration that wants young women like me to have children and improve the country's birth rate. This is an administration that claims to care about women and children. I know I wouldn't want to have a child while Trump continues to make it unsafe to be pregnant and give birth. I hate that this is the reality. Follow USA TODAY columnist Sara Pequeño on X, formerly Twitter, @sara__pequeno You can read diverse opinions from our USA TODAY columnists and other writers on the Opinion front page, on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and in our Opinion newsletter. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Trump just made healthcare more dangerous for pregnant women | Opinion

Federal vs. state power at issue in a hearing over Trump's election overhaul executive order
Federal vs. state power at issue in a hearing over Trump's election overhaul executive order

Yahoo

time19 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Federal vs. state power at issue in a hearing over Trump's election overhaul executive order

BOSTON (AP) — Democratic state attorneys general on Friday will seek to block President Donald Trump's proposal for a sweeping overhaul of U.S. elections in a case that tests a constitutional bedrock — the separation of powers. The top law enforcement officials from 19 states filed a federal lawsuit after the Republican president signed the executive order in March, arguing that its provisions would step on states' power to set their own election rules and that the executive branch had no such authority. In a filing supporting that argument, a bipartisan group of former secretaries of state said Trump's directive would upend the system established by the Constitution's Elections Clause, which gives states and Congress control over how elections are run. They said the order seeks to 'unilaterally coronate the President as the country's chief election policymaker and administrator.' If the court does not halt the order, they argued, 'the snowball of executive overreach will grow swiftly and exponentially." Trump's election directive was part of a flurry of executive orders he has issued in the opening months of his second term, many of which have drawn swift legal challenges. It follows years of him falsely claiming that his loss to Democrat Joe Biden in the 2020 presidential election was due to widespread fraud and an election year in which he and other Republicans promoted the notion that large numbers of noncitizens threatened the integrity of U.S. elections. In fact, voting by noncitizens is rare and, when caught, can lead to felony charges and deportation. Trump's executive order would require voters to show proof of U.S. citizenship when registering to vote in federal elections, prohibit mail or absentee ballots from being counted if they are received after Election Day, set new rules for voting equipment and prohibit non-U.S. citizens from being able to donate in certain elections. It also would condition federal election grant funding on states adhering to the strict ballot deadline. The hearing Friday in U.S. District Court in Boston comes in one of three lawsuits filed against the executive order. One is from Oregon and Washington, where elections are conducted almost entirely by mail and ballots received after Election Day are counted as long as they are postmarked by then. The provision that would create a proof-of-citizenship requirement for federal elections already has been halted in a lawsuit filed by voting and civil rights groups and national Democratic organizations. In that case, filed in federal court in the District of Columbia, the judge said the president's attempt to use a federal agency to enact a proof-of-citizenship requirement for voting usurped the power of states and Congress, which at the time was considering legislation that would do just that. That bill, called the SAVE Act, passed the U.S. House but faces an uncertain future in the Senate. Trump's executive order said its intent was to ensure 'free, fair and honest elections unmarred by fraud, errors, or suspicion.' The Justice Department, in arguing against the motion by the attorneys general for a preliminary injunction, said the president is within his rights to direct agencies to carry out federal voting laws. The order tasks the U.S. Election Assistance Commission with updating the federal voter registration form to require people to submit documentation proving they are U.S. citizens. Similar provisions enacted previously in a handful of states have raised concerns about disenfranchising otherwise eligible voters who can't readily access those documents. That includes married women, who would need both a birth certificate and a marriage license if they had changed their last name. A state proof-of-citizenship law enacted in Kansas more than a decade ago blocked the registrations of 31,000 people later found to be eligible to vote. The two sides will argue over whether the president has the authority to direct the election commission, which was created by Congress as an independent agency after the Florida ballot debacle during the 2000 presidential election. In its filing, the Justice Department said Trump's executive order falls within his authority to direct officials 'to carry out their statutory duties,' adding that 'the only potential voters it disenfranchises are noncitizens who are ineligible to vote anyway.'

Former Rep. David Jolly announces bid for Florida governor
Former Rep. David Jolly announces bid for Florida governor

Yahoo

time35 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Former Rep. David Jolly announces bid for Florida governor

TAMPA, Fla. (WFLA) — Former Rep. David Jolly announced Thursday that he is entering the Florida governor's race. Jolly previously represented Florida District 13 from 2014 to 2017 as a Republican. However, in the governor's race, Jolly will run as a Democratic candidate. 'Let's end the politics of division and return Florida to voters who simply want an economy that works, the best education system in the world, safe communities, and a government that stays out of their doctors' offices and family decisions,' Jolly said in a news release. 'This is a different type of issues-driven, results-focused campaign, and it will be driven not by anger and division but by optimism and solutions,' Jolly said. 'We are building a new coalition of Floridians who deeply care about their state and are desperate for real answers to real problems that are putting our quality of life at risk.' Jolly is the first Democrat to enter the Florida governor's race. U.S. Rep. Byron Donalds, Surfside Mayor Charles Burkett and State Sen. Jason Pizzo have already thrown their hats into the race. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store